Have a question for dochawk? See answers at askdochawk!

With the huge number of sites that already exist, why on earth would I start a new column on the internet? Almost any kind of information is already available in some form, and web logs and the usenet provide more opinion than anyone can possibly digest. Yet I'm doing this anyway.

I have an uncommonly broad background. I've designed software, practiced law, and am a college professor teaching economics, statistics, and law. Between this and being highly opinionated, I'm constantly asked to explain things about which I have, or seem to have, particular knowledge. This happens with various mailing lists to which I belong and with my students—outside of class as well as within. Not only that, I enjoy it (which is a large portion of the reason that I spend most of my time as a faculty member rather than making several times as much).

It's easy enough to explain why I would do this—but why would anyone want to read it? Aside from the fact that many people seem to enjoy my explanations, both for their content and for the sometimes circuitous approach I take, I seem to have a different angle on most issues than nearly all of the other commentators out there. When discussing law and politics in the context of recent elections, for example, I'm far more concerned about protecting the rule of law than I am about the political consequences of my conclusions. Quite often, understanding the processes is far more important than the actual result.

Another reason that the world needs my voice is that I'm a member of a dying political breed: the classic liberal. Nearly all of our Founding Fathers were members of this political mindset, yet today we're few and far between, having given birth to the thinking of both toady's' liberals and conservatives. This is important not because I believe that everyone should adopt my politics (though, of course, they should), but because viewing and explaining the world from this angle offers insights not heard from most commentators. Understanding these differences has also allowed me to predict the rulings of the United States Supreme Court far more accurately than anyone else I've met.

Finally, I must admit that I believe that I'd make a far better commentator, with better reasoned opinions, than most of those out there. Hubris, perhaps, but a lack of confidence is not among my many failings. I often react to news coverage with "But what about . . ." or "You've missed the core issue!" This is my chance to put in my two cents worth, and perhaps be heard.

All in all, this site is here because I can offer a fresh perspective. Maybe you'll agree with me; maybe not. I find that I learn much more listening to well reasoned arguments from those with whom I disagree; no new ideas are spread when preaching to the choir. I have fond memories of the early days of CNN's Crossfire program, when Buchannan and Kinsley were the regular hosts. In truth, I didn't agree with either of them about much of anything—but both consistently made their case so well that they could almost convince the listener that the sky was green. That level of reasoning is the ideal to which I aspire.

© MMIV, Richard E. Hawkins

Links of interest

Read

Dr. Hawkins is a statistician, antitrust attorney, and Assistant Professor of Economics at the Pennsylvania State University.

Cite or link to this page as http://dochawk.org/column.041229.html,